Sunday, August 1, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
The Sky is Falling!
I think of all of the time about how things are and how they should be. I think too of how largely all of mankind accepts all of the illusions of the physical material world without question. An example is that, sometime in the Seventies, we began to hear that the World was running out of water. Messages were everywhere: "Save Water!" When that campaign was on, and still, I asked myself, "How do you save water?" It's a question no one has yet answered nor can I answer it either. Not long after this campaign to Save Water, people began selling bottled water and today you almost cannot enter an establishment where snacks and food are sold without finding bottled water bearing various labels. Is this saving water? Is this water that was saved? If it is saving, please explain to me how selling water is saving it. If it is water that was saved, please explain why it's being sold. I just don't understand.
What I do understand though is that the original scare was and still is an illusion. The World is not running out of water. I can't measure the hydrosphere, but I will guarantee you that not one drop of water has disappeared from this planet that wasn't carried off by mechanical means. Something else is afoot here. It's akin to the story of Chicken Little, if I have the source right. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" everyone cries as in the story of Chicken Little. But the sky wasn't falling and we are not running out of water. All but one of the characters in the story fell into the illusion caused by fear and accepted it as the truth. One sane and sober character showed the rest the fallacy of their beliefs. Almost everyone today will glibly tell you that we're running out of water, yet the proof to the contrary is on shelves everywhere. And not one person in the U.S. has died of dehydration due to a water shortage across the country.
So, what's the real story?
I don't know, but I'd bet good old American greed, otherwise known as entrepreneurial enterprise, is behind all of this. It does seem to connect the dots between the scare and the appearance of what we're running short of on shelves selling food and snacks. It also fits a motive very well. No, I'm sure we're not running out of water. What we're doing is running out of reality. Being in an illusion with others who have bought into it seems to be more comfortable than proving that the Sky isn't Falling.
What I do understand though is that the original scare was and still is an illusion. The World is not running out of water. I can't measure the hydrosphere, but I will guarantee you that not one drop of water has disappeared from this planet that wasn't carried off by mechanical means. Something else is afoot here. It's akin to the story of Chicken Little, if I have the source right. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" everyone cries as in the story of Chicken Little. But the sky wasn't falling and we are not running out of water. All but one of the characters in the story fell into the illusion caused by fear and accepted it as the truth. One sane and sober character showed the rest the fallacy of their beliefs. Almost everyone today will glibly tell you that we're running out of water, yet the proof to the contrary is on shelves everywhere. And not one person in the U.S. has died of dehydration due to a water shortage across the country.
So, what's the real story?
I don't know, but I'd bet good old American greed, otherwise known as entrepreneurial enterprise, is behind all of this. It does seem to connect the dots between the scare and the appearance of what we're running short of on shelves selling food and snacks. It also fits a motive very well. No, I'm sure we're not running out of water. What we're doing is running out of reality. Being in an illusion with others who have bought into it seems to be more comfortable than proving that the Sky isn't Falling.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
La causa principal de la pobreza
Continuamente recibo correo y toda clase de anuncios pidiendo que luchamos contra la pobreza, enfermedad, y el hambre. ¿No se ha considerado nadie que la raíz de todos estos problemas es el amononatimiento de riquezas? Dos por ciento de las unidades de compra en los EE.UU. poseen noventa y ocho por ciento de los bienes del país. Esto se puede comparar con hacer invitar a cien personas, representando proporcionalmente los estratos sociales del país, a una fiesta donde van a servir sólo un pastel. Éste se corta en cien piezas repartiéndolas entre los invitados según sus niveles de riquezas. Los dos más ricos recibirían noventa piezas minetras los noventa y ocho demás recibirían las díez que quedan. Entonces nos piden combatir nuestro hambre, pobreza y enfermedades concomitantes. Es peor la situación en los países de menos desarrollo técnico como hay menos riquezas que repartir y la proporción de ricos es también menor. Qué hay de mal con este retrato?
The Primary Cause of Poverty
What's the real cause of poverty?
I am continuously encountering emails and all kinds of advertising asking that we fight poverty, disease, and hunger. Has anyone ever considered that the root of all of these problems is the accumulation of wealth? Two percent of all of the purchasing units in the U.S. hold ninety percent of all of the assets. This is akin to inviting a hundred people, proportionately representing the social strata of the country, to a pie party where only one pie will be served. The pie is cut into a hundred pieces and distributed proportionately among the hundred invitees according to their levels of wealth. Two people would receive ninety pieces of the pie and the other ninety-eight would receive the remaining two pieces to divide among themselves. Then we are asked to combat our hunger, our poverty, and our concomitant diseases. The situation is worse in less technically developed countries since there are fewer riches and the proportion of the wealthy is also smaller. What's wrong with this picture?
I am continuously encountering emails and all kinds of advertising asking that we fight poverty, disease, and hunger. Has anyone ever considered that the root of all of these problems is the accumulation of wealth? Two percent of all of the purchasing units in the U.S. hold ninety percent of all of the assets. This is akin to inviting a hundred people, proportionately representing the social strata of the country, to a pie party where only one pie will be served. The pie is cut into a hundred pieces and distributed proportionately among the hundred invitees according to their levels of wealth. Two people would receive ninety pieces of the pie and the other ninety-eight would receive the remaining two pieces to divide among themselves. Then we are asked to combat our hunger, our poverty, and our concomitant diseases. The situation is worse in less technically developed countries since there are fewer riches and the proportion of the wealthy is also smaller. What's wrong with this picture?
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Holidays
It's the day before Memorial Day and everyone is thankful for having this holiday to kick off summer's beginning. I'm not. I'm not thankful for holidays one whit. You see we wouldn't need holidays if mankind hadn't decided to go down the road of materialism and consumerism. We wouldn't need holidays if we hadn't given up our independence for dependence on money, trade, commerce, and profit. In accepting money as a means to facilitate material exchanges, we set ourselves up for a system of control by those who produce and have as as opposed to those who don't produce and have not. I understand that tomorrow is the one day of the year set aside for honoring all those men and women who have served in the military and, mostly, who lost their lives while serving. Still, all said, it's the result of mankind's quest for material gain and dominance over others.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Publishing
I've tried for many years to be a selling novelist and short-story writer without much success. I did manage, with the help of my mentor, Max Collins, to sell a couple of my first short stories. I had an agent who worked for the William Morris agency interested in my work once, but that fell through. For what reason, I don't know. Anyway, discovering that the Internet is a good place to self publish, I'm going to give it a try. After all , if you're an artist of any kind, you want people to see your work. So, I'm going to publish here my first complete novel, Chilpancingo. It attracted the agent I told you about. I think it's a fine story and have had another self-supporting writer tell me pretty much the same. I'm going to post the novel here with a button for donating whatever amount you feel the read is worth. You can read it for free and not donate a cent if you wish. Or you can donate to the level you feel you've been entertained. It's your choice. I just want you to read it. Click on the Chilpancingo link below in the right sidebar to go to the novel.
About me: my wife and I have lived in a school bus for the last 22 years. We wouldn't dream of any other kind of residence. Presently we are in Arkansas. I'm hoping to visit Mexico for a few months where maybe I can come up with another good story involving that wonderful country.
Enjoy the read.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Evolution or Creationism?
There seem to be two prevalent theories of how the Universe and life came about, at least in Western societies. Serious and devout Christians adamantly espouse the theory that the World and everything which exists was created just as all things appear today. This is the most basic theory of Christianity dealing with how things came to be. Evolution, on the other hand, takes the view that the Universe emerged from an explosion some 4.6 million years ago, using scientific findings to support the theory. These findings have come about, as I understand it, through astronomy and the finding of material so minute of such an age that it is considered to be the oldest material found. It is associated only with certain conditions that would be existent only in an intense and immense explosion of the kind posited in the theory. This concept, despite the laws of physics it seems to uncover, primarily says that all of creation was the result of a chance detonation of some unfathomable strength. From the creation of all the material, somehow life came about and began to evolve into its myriad of forms found on this planet, not to mention any that could exist on the hundreds of billions of planets that more than likely exist in the others hundreds of millions of galaxies in the Universe. Christianity uses the Bible as its foundation for its theory and maintains that faith in the Word and the God presented in the Bible is all that is needed to understand that the Creation was by Divine Design. I think that neither theory is completely correct and that the truth of the matter lies somewhere between the two and includes parts of both.
The problem with both viewpoints is that each sets acceptance criteria that are narrowed to support the appropriate theory. Science's parameters are necessarily strict and rigid, but can't allow for something unseen and improvable. Christianity allows only belief and faith in the tenet that the World was created a mere ten thousand years ago and that all was created in the form it demonstrates in present day. So, each excludes the other and neither allows for another plausible possibility which should be considered. That is that The Creator has worked things out from the great initial explosion through evolution. This is the only theory I can find that brings both sides together in a sensible plausible form. To explain the theory, some acceptance of both sides must be allowed.
The idea of Evolution is completely substantiated in the millions of bits of information and artifacts scientists have uncovered, analyzed, recorded, and stored. Creationism relies on the interpretation of a book and its genealogy as well its historical timeline and religious relics also stored away. Science can and does show very clearly the development of hundreds of thousands of species back to their most basic forms, in many cases. The DNA of all terrestrial life, not aquatic, has been traced to a single species of dinosaur that managed to survive the ice ages, floods, and planetary fire storms. If DNA identifies criminals with next-to-no-doubt, or even absolutely, then it is very reasonable to accept the identification of a species as the antecedent of today's life where DNA is the main proof or only proof. But, the creature in question lived much earlier than ten thousand years ago. (I believe it existed some 2 billion years ago. I'm not sure of the age.) Moreover, there is plain proof that the World, in addition to glaciations, has experienced catastrophic firestorms thought to have been initiated by meteor impacts at least twice. These firestorms destroyed all surface life as well as, probably, all aquatic life. This is thought to have happened because at least two specific layers of carbon can be found worldwide in the same comparable geologic layers of the planet. The only explanation for such global carbonization has to be intense firestorms that proliferated and destroyed all organic matter on the planet within hours. Meteors of great size would cause just such an event. Evidence also indicates that gigantic tsunamis swept over many continents planet wide in conjunction with the firestorms. A meteor strike could have caused the tsunamis also. Lastly, there is geological evidence of meteor impacts both in the Pacific and in the area of the Caribbean Sea where immense undersea craters have been located. The only explanation for the craters seems to be they result from meteor impacts. None of this evidence is in accordance with the Christian belief that the World and all that is was created ten thousand years ago.
Here is where one's understanding has to make a leap or at least a change in perspective. We need to stop thinking of life as a physical characteristic and begin to perceive it as the motive force of all that is defined as living. To be alive, something has to contain an energy field and has to process earth, water, and/or gaseous elements to maintain and generate the energy it demonstrates. One caveat here is that water may not be necessary to sustain the energy we call life since bacteria live and thrive in rock strata miles below the surface. Whether or not these bacteria somehow have access to water, I don’t know. Also, oxygen, it has been discovered, is not necessary to life as once was taught. Bacteria and other creatures live in highly toxic waters of fumaroles found in the Pacific at extreme depths. These creatures, as with the bacteria in the deep rock strata, live in lightless environments also. So, light is left out of the list of requirements for the generation of the life energy. Heat also seems to be outside the limits previously thought since the bacteria living around the fumaroles live in extremely warm if not hot water which are heated by volcanic heat rising through the earth and into the ocean.
How do Evolution and Creationism intersect? The intersection is where the life force comes into play. To understand this, one has to think about some of the teachings of the various religion of the world. Probably, the main tenet of all of the best known religions is that there is one dynamic force which is thought to have originated life as we know it. It is part of every particle of the Universe, whether matter or energy. Being part of every particle, this force—call it God, Allah, or the Creator—has to be everywhere or it simply can’t be at all. The Universe is all that is. Therefore, this Force has to be part of it and it can’t be restricted to some single sector where it rules like a distant king or emperor. Instead, it is part of everything. It is the guiding force of all that lives. It is the primary force behind Evolution. It is Intelligence and the Living Force of Life. It experiments with every single species from the inside trying to improve that species to its highest potential. It developed Man’s brain and is having fun with Man’s development. It has been in every single creature that ever was and will be in every single creature yet to evolve. Luckily, we have individual awareness, but animals and insects of all kinds to too. Otherwise, they wouldn’t try to hard to avoid danger or threats.
For dichotomous reasons, neither Science nor Creationism allows for this all-pervasive Intelligence. Neither is one-hundred percent right, not is either one-hundred percent wrong. Both are both. The answer is in the middle. Yes, Evolution is a fact and, yes, Creationism is too. It’s simply that neither actually takes the form being espoused by either side. The answer to both is as I’ve described above.
Think about it.
Walk in Peace, Love, and Harmony.
Quietwalker
The problem with both viewpoints is that each sets acceptance criteria that are narrowed to support the appropriate theory. Science's parameters are necessarily strict and rigid, but can't allow for something unseen and improvable. Christianity allows only belief and faith in the tenet that the World was created a mere ten thousand years ago and that all was created in the form it demonstrates in present day. So, each excludes the other and neither allows for another plausible possibility which should be considered. That is that The Creator has worked things out from the great initial explosion through evolution. This is the only theory I can find that brings both sides together in a sensible plausible form. To explain the theory, some acceptance of both sides must be allowed.
The idea of Evolution is completely substantiated in the millions of bits of information and artifacts scientists have uncovered, analyzed, recorded, and stored. Creationism relies on the interpretation of a book and its genealogy as well its historical timeline and religious relics also stored away. Science can and does show very clearly the development of hundreds of thousands of species back to their most basic forms, in many cases. The DNA of all terrestrial life, not aquatic, has been traced to a single species of dinosaur that managed to survive the ice ages, floods, and planetary fire storms. If DNA identifies criminals with next-to-no-doubt, or even absolutely, then it is very reasonable to accept the identification of a species as the antecedent of today's life where DNA is the main proof or only proof. But, the creature in question lived much earlier than ten thousand years ago. (I believe it existed some 2 billion years ago. I'm not sure of the age.) Moreover, there is plain proof that the World, in addition to glaciations, has experienced catastrophic firestorms thought to have been initiated by meteor impacts at least twice. These firestorms destroyed all surface life as well as, probably, all aquatic life. This is thought to have happened because at least two specific layers of carbon can be found worldwide in the same comparable geologic layers of the planet. The only explanation for such global carbonization has to be intense firestorms that proliferated and destroyed all organic matter on the planet within hours. Meteors of great size would cause just such an event. Evidence also indicates that gigantic tsunamis swept over many continents planet wide in conjunction with the firestorms. A meteor strike could have caused the tsunamis also. Lastly, there is geological evidence of meteor impacts both in the Pacific and in the area of the Caribbean Sea where immense undersea craters have been located. The only explanation for the craters seems to be they result from meteor impacts. None of this evidence is in accordance with the Christian belief that the World and all that is was created ten thousand years ago.
Here is where one's understanding has to make a leap or at least a change in perspective. We need to stop thinking of life as a physical characteristic and begin to perceive it as the motive force of all that is defined as living. To be alive, something has to contain an energy field and has to process earth, water, and/or gaseous elements to maintain and generate the energy it demonstrates. One caveat here is that water may not be necessary to sustain the energy we call life since bacteria live and thrive in rock strata miles below the surface. Whether or not these bacteria somehow have access to water, I don’t know. Also, oxygen, it has been discovered, is not necessary to life as once was taught. Bacteria and other creatures live in highly toxic waters of fumaroles found in the Pacific at extreme depths. These creatures, as with the bacteria in the deep rock strata, live in lightless environments also. So, light is left out of the list of requirements for the generation of the life energy. Heat also seems to be outside the limits previously thought since the bacteria living around the fumaroles live in extremely warm if not hot water which are heated by volcanic heat rising through the earth and into the ocean.
How do Evolution and Creationism intersect? The intersection is where the life force comes into play. To understand this, one has to think about some of the teachings of the various religion of the world. Probably, the main tenet of all of the best known religions is that there is one dynamic force which is thought to have originated life as we know it. It is part of every particle of the Universe, whether matter or energy. Being part of every particle, this force—call it God, Allah, or the Creator—has to be everywhere or it simply can’t be at all. The Universe is all that is. Therefore, this Force has to be part of it and it can’t be restricted to some single sector where it rules like a distant king or emperor. Instead, it is part of everything. It is the guiding force of all that lives. It is the primary force behind Evolution. It is Intelligence and the Living Force of Life. It experiments with every single species from the inside trying to improve that species to its highest potential. It developed Man’s brain and is having fun with Man’s development. It has been in every single creature that ever was and will be in every single creature yet to evolve. Luckily, we have individual awareness, but animals and insects of all kinds to too. Otherwise, they wouldn’t try to hard to avoid danger or threats.
For dichotomous reasons, neither Science nor Creationism allows for this all-pervasive Intelligence. Neither is one-hundred percent right, not is either one-hundred percent wrong. Both are both. The answer is in the middle. Yes, Evolution is a fact and, yes, Creationism is too. It’s simply that neither actually takes the form being espoused by either side. The answer to both is as I’ve described above.
Think about it.
Walk in Peace, Love, and Harmony.
Quietwalker
The Most Important Commandment
A man approached Jesus and said, "Teacher, which is the most important commandment?"
Jesus replied, saying, "This above all others, thou shalt love thy lord, thy God, with all thy heart, all thy soul, and with all thy might (all of thy mind in another place in the New Testament), and thy neighbor as thyself. All the rest hang from this."
I have meditated on this teaching for years. It seems to be demanding that one love God with every single atom of one's being since it explicitly says "...with all thy heart, all thy soul, and all thy might..." and I take it to mean just that. One must love the Creator with every particle of one's being. This commandment says that nothing comes before loving the Creator absolutely and unequivocally. In fact, the appended statement by Jesus, "All the rest hang from this," means exactly what I've suggested. The first act of awareness one must commit to is loving the Creator and not loving anything else to the same degree or, at least, not to any degree more. This seems to be overly demanding, or impossible, or both. But it is neither. We are being asked to understand a deeper principle here.
What is that principle?
Thinking about it, it seems impossible to love anything else if one loves the Creator absolutely—meaning there can be no restrictions, no limits. Maybe the impossibility arises in the mind because of the manner in which we view the existence of what we call God. In thinking of All-Powerful, All-Knowing, and All-Present Being, we cannot conceive of such without placing some type of mental limitations on it. For example: most Christians will blithely tell you that God lives in Heaven. But, if God "lives" in Heaven yet It lives everywhere at all times, then where is this Heaven? Is it not here with us then if God is everywhere at all times and lives in Heaven, or does God leave Heaven everyday to do Its work then return to Heaven to rest at the end of Its work day and on the Sabbath? If God does this, then this strongly implies that God is not everywhere at all times since He/It leaves Heaven to take care of those things It deems necessary to oversee, which raises another complication. If God is All Powerful, why must It leave Heaven to do anything?
Again, what is the Principle?
Jesus, if you’ve never noticed, taught by asking questions, by telling stories, and by saying things which seem contradictory on the surface. But he said, “Let him who has ears hear and him who has eyes see. Jesus wasn’t trying to win converts; he was speaking to those people who truly wanted to understand. He had no time for anyone who blindly followed religious strictures, but he had all of the time necessary for people who were truly looking for understanding. His words here meant, “These words are for you who want to understand.”
How do we come to understand the quoted passage?
We have to understand that, according to Christian teaching, God is everywhere at all times. If God, the Creator, is everywhere at all times, then he/she/it must be in every single particle of the Universe, no matter how minute, no matter how enormous. This, consequently, means that the Creator is part of every single atom of all matter and energy of any kind, discovered and still unknown. It means that the energy I call the Creator, the Jews and Christians call God, and which Islam calls Allah, has to be part of every atom of every human who lives or has ever lived. It means that the Creator is part of all of us and that mankind is part of the Creator. So loving the creation unreservedly would entail loving the Creator with all of one’s heart, soul, and mind. This includes loving oneself and one’s neighbor with the same intensity and forgiveness as well.
I hope you understand. I can’t say it any better.
Walk in Peace, Love, and Harmony.
Quietwalker
Jesus replied, saying, "This above all others, thou shalt love thy lord, thy God, with all thy heart, all thy soul, and with all thy might (all of thy mind in another place in the New Testament), and thy neighbor as thyself. All the rest hang from this."
I have meditated on this teaching for years. It seems to be demanding that one love God with every single atom of one's being since it explicitly says "...with all thy heart, all thy soul, and all thy might..." and I take it to mean just that. One must love the Creator with every particle of one's being. This commandment says that nothing comes before loving the Creator absolutely and unequivocally. In fact, the appended statement by Jesus, "All the rest hang from this," means exactly what I've suggested. The first act of awareness one must commit to is loving the Creator and not loving anything else to the same degree or, at least, not to any degree more. This seems to be overly demanding, or impossible, or both. But it is neither. We are being asked to understand a deeper principle here.
What is that principle?
Thinking about it, it seems impossible to love anything else if one loves the Creator absolutely—meaning there can be no restrictions, no limits. Maybe the impossibility arises in the mind because of the manner in which we view the existence of what we call God. In thinking of All-Powerful, All-Knowing, and All-Present Being, we cannot conceive of such without placing some type of mental limitations on it. For example: most Christians will blithely tell you that God lives in Heaven. But, if God "lives" in Heaven yet It lives everywhere at all times, then where is this Heaven? Is it not here with us then if God is everywhere at all times and lives in Heaven, or does God leave Heaven everyday to do Its work then return to Heaven to rest at the end of Its work day and on the Sabbath? If God does this, then this strongly implies that God is not everywhere at all times since He/It leaves Heaven to take care of those things It deems necessary to oversee, which raises another complication. If God is All Powerful, why must It leave Heaven to do anything?
Again, what is the Principle?
Jesus, if you’ve never noticed, taught by asking questions, by telling stories, and by saying things which seem contradictory on the surface. But he said, “Let him who has ears hear and him who has eyes see. Jesus wasn’t trying to win converts; he was speaking to those people who truly wanted to understand. He had no time for anyone who blindly followed religious strictures, but he had all of the time necessary for people who were truly looking for understanding. His words here meant, “These words are for you who want to understand.”
How do we come to understand the quoted passage?
We have to understand that, according to Christian teaching, God is everywhere at all times. If God, the Creator, is everywhere at all times, then he/she/it must be in every single particle of the Universe, no matter how minute, no matter how enormous. This, consequently, means that the Creator is part of every single atom of all matter and energy of any kind, discovered and still unknown. It means that the energy I call the Creator, the Jews and Christians call God, and which Islam calls Allah, has to be part of every atom of every human who lives or has ever lived. It means that the Creator is part of all of us and that mankind is part of the Creator. So loving the creation unreservedly would entail loving the Creator with all of one’s heart, soul, and mind. This includes loving oneself and one’s neighbor with the same intensity and forgiveness as well.
I hope you understand. I can’t say it any better.
Walk in Peace, Love, and Harmony.
Quietwalker
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
